Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/In MS Paint With One Arm, While Furiously Masturbating

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

In MS Paint With One Arm, While Furiously Masturbating

shooooooooooooooooooooooooooot T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:12, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

I'll get it. --Black Flamingo 20:25, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	8	This was a tough one to review, by which I mean it's pretty good already. That's not to say there aren't any weaknesses, however in terms of humour you do a really good job. I wouldn't say I had any gripes with the jokes until about midway through, where you do seem to veer off a little, although not in a major way. The part I'm talking about is the bit about Lady GaGa; the whole mention of her feels a tad out of place to be honest. While I had no problem with her being a connoisseur (because I can believe that), but the whole thing about her weird outfit at the awards show didn't seem to have much to do with anything. It just seemed like you'd got onto the topic of GaGa, and decided to run with it by making jokes about her outfit, however irrelevant that may be. I also don't think the idea that she is a producer of the art sits that well with the rest of the article, simply because she's not that kind of artist in reality (not that IMPWOAWFM requires that much artistic talent, but hopefully you get my point there). Like I said, none of this is a major flaw, but it does detract a little in my opinion. Perhaps she could be one of a number of celebrity endorsers, rather than a practising artist herself. It may also be worth talking about "actual" artists in the Commercial Success section, either ones you've made up or genuine artists might convincingly try it - just to give us a better idea of how the movement might have gotten so big. There's a similar part where you start talking about Radiohead. I just find it a little strange that in an article largely about art, computers and masturbation, you talk an awful lot about popular musicians - not to say that I didn't love your version of The Bends, because I did (by some coincidence, I'm listening to Radiohead right now, by the way. Their new album, in fact. I don't know if you're a fan but it's pretty good). The biggest issue here however is the joke about them doing a "cover" of the "cover of the cover", or whatever it was. This was a bit hard to follow, and I'm still a bit confused over it actually. While I'm sure this was what you intended, I feel the joke isn't as effective as you'd hoped it would be. I get what you're trying to say; they did a cover of the replication, right? The sentence itself is just too clunky. The struggle it takes to read it ultimately ruins the joke, which to be fair isn't that great anyway, and is simply hinged on the triviality that "cover" can also mean "doing a version of something". Although I do like the joke about the circle jerk, so maybe you can sort something out here. Again, would it work better if this was an artist you were talking about, rather than Thom Yorke? It would be great to see a little bit more satire of the art world here, and also MS Paint itself, I suppose. Although obviously there are some jokes in there about it being shit, you could probably go a lot further. One thing that stuck out in my mind was when you described the spray can as being one of the more "tender" parts of MS Paint. That was some really good deadpan satire of the program, and it would be great to see more of this. Maybe they sign their names with the textbox, or something like that? Something to think about, I'm sure. I suppose my only other issue here, is that the article does feel a tad rushed here and there. Now I appreciate the concept is not one that can be padded out forever, that's kind of what's so good about it actually, but some sections, like the bit about this Adam Scott gentleman, don't contain much detail and I came away feeling less-than-informed. I found it difficult to visualise what his paintings were like, or why he did them, because you hurry through this part too much. I loved the part about how they were displayed in the gallery, but it may be worth going into a bit more detail about the various styles associated with the movement, because the stuff about the Furries and the Fabios suffered from the same thing. Why do they have those names, for instance? I mean, obviously Fabio comes from the "model/actor" you mention, who I'm not sure is real or not, but where did it come from initially, and who is he? Apart from those rather nitpicky points, there's some really excellent stuff in here.
Concept:	8	I like the concept, very simple, but also very well thought out. At first I had concerns that the fact that "MS Paint" is in the title was nonsense due to it starting in the Dark Ages, but you actually play off this well. I suppose the biggest problem with the concept is that the idea of them being replications of popular works doesn't seem to come from anywhere, when you actually read it closely. It just starts with the first guy saying "he could do Starry Night", then never comments as to why he carries on doing copies, nor why anyone else does really. I was actually a little frustrated when trying to understand this, and had to read it several times only to finally discover that it sort of came from nowhere. You do mention at times that not all of them are replications - I noticed a few hints that some of them are original pieces of work, besides the monks' ones, I mean. However, I think this detracts from it too much as well, because the shitty paint versions of famous portraits in the article are so funny, you're right to be focussing on those rather than the original ones. In my opinion, it would work better without any reference to original IMPWOAWFM paintings, but it could also do with more of an explanation to support the hilarious replicas you've made.
Prose and formatting:	10	There's very little to say here since you write incredibly well. One thing that stands out however was this line: "...focus on the more sensual aspects of self-pleasure by utilizing tender MS Paint effects, such as the spray can." Towards the end there, the sentence just gets a bit cumbersome. By the time you get to the word "tender" I started to feel a bit lost, and had to study it again to catch your meaning, ruining the otherwise fine joke in the process. Perhaps if you started a new sentence after "self pleasure" and then put the comment about how they use the spray can in the following sentence. It might also help to italicise the title of the movement, because its immense size made it rather difficult to separate from the rest of the prose at times. The fact that there's a comma in there only confused matters further too.
Images:	8	Okay, in many ways the article's greatest strength is also its biggest weakness. I love the images, in fact, they pretty much make the article. I laughed harder at them than any of the jokes in the prose. I'm sure you can see the problem here given that there's only 3 images in the whole article. The ratio of writing to images is a bit imbalanced. In plain words, I would love to see more - lots more. Of course I realise there isn't much space left, that's why I propose you create a gallery section, or maybe two or three, breaking up the text. Not only do I want to see more classic works, but it would be great to see more leftfield examples like the Radiohead album. Would it possible to 'chop one of the monks' offerings too, because that would really help. For an article that relies so much on visual humour - with jokes that hinge on the absurdity of fictional visual art - it isn't illustrated anywhere near as much as it should be. I would say this is the most important point in the entire review, disregard everything else if you want, but please get some more images in there. It just feels so lacking right now. I'm sorry to have to say that, but please take my yearning for more as a compliment, it's only because the ones you have are truly hilarious.
Miscellaneous:	8	My gut feeling as to the whole thing.
Final Score:	42	So like I said, more images is the main thing, this is supposed to be an illustrated article after all. To sum up, the other things you might want to have a think about are trying to get the humour a tad tighter, especially with all the music-related parts, and perhaps trying to justify the movement's existence a little more, as I suggest in Concept. Apart from that, nice work. This deserved to do as well as it did in PLS, not that it was really up against much, but you know what I mean. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, please let me know and I'll try to help. I hope the review is ok.
Reviewer:	--Black Flamingo 21:31, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

You just gave away that you've never seen Zoolander. Watch it now! Easily one of the best comedies of the '00s. Also, I think i could get away with sneaking a picture gallery at the bottom. Anyone who comes up with their own IMSPWOAWFM interpretation is welcome to contribute too! Thanks for the review! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:46, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it a bit, added another picture (will do the gallery later), and embellished on the Radiohead and Liebenstein thing to avoid ambiguities. Can't see how I could change Lady GaGa though, since that part makes sense to me. People notice when she wears ridiculous outfits, so it would make sense that the public got hooked on IMSPWOAWFM through outfit exposure. Right? --130.64.194.185 22:10, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

The Scream = marvellous. I think I'm becoming a connoisseur myself now. The fact that GaGa promotes IMSPWOAWFM makes sense, it was just the bit about her dress that didn't seem to have any place. Obviously it's your call though, it wouldn't make me vote against on VFH or anything. And on Zoolander, I've seen bits of it, I seem to remember finding Will Ferrell really funny in it (was he the Fabio guy?). I don't remember it very well, but will add it to my list. --Black Flamingo 22:36, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Fabio's a real person, and in one of my favorite parts of Zoolander he gets a "slashie" award (skip to 7:14). I guess it's a somewhat obscure reference, if you have neither seen Zoolander nor heard of Fabio, but I suppose I didn't bank on people like you existing. Gah! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:48, February 25, 2011 (UTC)